Why stronger fuel efficiency standards are so important

TreeHugger used to be all about incremental steps you could take to reduce your carbon footprint, but most of our readers have changed their lightbulbs by now and we totally gave up on clotheslines. The problems we face are so huge that it almost was surprising to see the article in the New York Times titled What You Can Do About Climate Change, talking about turning down your thermostat or driving more slowly. I was not alone:

This kind of small-step, personal-choice take is disastrously out-of-touch with huge leaps climate reality demands: https://t.co/nGoqGLnm3y

It is actually all a very clever bait and switch, to show how important fuel efficiency really is. They note that all the small steps will help,

But none would come close to doing as much as driving a fuel-efficient vehicle. If vehicles averaged 31 miles per gallon, according to our research, the United States could reduce its carbon dioxide emissions by 5 percent. Improving fuel economy carries particular salience after the Trump administration announced this month that it would re-examine the progressively more stringent Obama-era fuel economy standards for vehicles in model years 2022 to 2025.

That is their real agenda and message: that improving auto efficiency is "the most efficient way to help the planet." Except that it really isn't:

How did they miss:- use transit, bike or walk- live in small houses or apartments- have fewer kids https://t.co/IcIAZuUtxq

Changing how much we drive is not easy; it often requires a major change in lifestyle, like moving closer to work or making more frequent use of public transportation, which often takes longer and is less convenient than driving. It is much easier to buy a more fuel-efficient vehicle; cars with fuel economy much better than the new-vehicle average of 25 m.p.g. are widely available.

However instead of even doing that, people are buying SUVs and pickup trucks because they cost the same to gas up as a tiny car did a few years ago when gas was expensive. Which brings us back to Sivak and Schoettle's agenda, which is making the case for the regulating of fuel economy, which the EPA is now looking at gutting:

Significant increases in fuel-economy standards for all vehicles, but especially for pickups and S.U.V.s, are even more important when relatively low gas prices motivate buyers to choose larger vehicles over smaller ones.

The Times article has a good list of things people should do, some transportation related (slow down, keep your tires filled, fly less) and -In our homes (turn down the thermostat, change your bulbs, although seriously, "Replace one of every five incandescent light bulbs with LEDs." is just lame, change them all) -and how we eat (less meat, less waste, less food: "Reduce food consumption by 2 percent, roughly 48 fewer calories for many people. A miniature box of raisins is 42 calories.") They might have added "ride a bike or walk more."

All those little incremental steps fade to insignificance when you look at the big picture, where our carbon is coming from, the single biggest source being that big honking green bar of petroleum powering transportation. That's why we don't just need better cars, we have to get people out of gasoline powered cars if we are going to make any real difference. But Sivak and Schoettle are right; the last thing we should be doing is scrapping or weakening the fuel efficiency standards.